What do you think about this essay I wrote?

Enlightenment: What It Is And How To Get It

How do you justify the leap from a simple epistemological limitation (ie. knowing is experience, dependent on experience) to ontological truth (there exists nothing other than experience)?

Also, could the arguments that you use to refute the external world also be used to refute the existence of other minds, other experiences, other subjects? Am I justified in saying that because I don't directly experience your experience, your experience isn't actually happening?

You are pimping your book...Please be honest enough to do so up front.
I like your essay well enough and believe similar things as you. I'd of course have to read your book to see if the similarities are actually the same but I am happy with my thoughts on the matter so far as $29 goes.

Can you -- or can anyone -- explain something really simple to me?

If there is nondual Consciousness as the sole ontological reality, nothing other than that, how could there be anything other than global omniscience? And if there is a global omniscience, how could there be (or even seem to be) any kind of limited knowingness? And if there isn't any kind of limited knowingness, why can't the writer of these lines witness the readers' environment and thoughts and vice-versa? And if there is a limit to the content of any experience, doesn't this imply that there is something other than the witnessing subject -- even if it's only another subject -- in which case it can't be global/nondual/undivided?

I understand that we never actually experience any separation, and that our experience is already nondual in that sense, and that subject and object are inferred rather than directly experienced. But to turn this experiential limitation into an ontological truth, a nondual Consciousness as the sole reality, leads to something less plausible than an actual world experienced by many limited beings, each with it's own limited perspective.

My argument refutes other minds as well. Besides covering all of this extensively in my book, i did wrote a few articles about this some years ago. You can read them here (4 part series) http://www.uncoveringlife.com/veil-of-perception/

So if there are no other minds, why are you talking to yourself?

Okay, thanks. While I don't find the argument convincing, it gives me a better understanding of what you're about. (Seemingly the same as Greg Goode, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, etc). The section on space and time -- (part 3 of 4, I think) -- contains what I was looking for: an explanation of how/why some people can conceive of consciousness as non-partitioned / non-localised / non-individualised.

Your articles read like a bad philosophy 101 paper. You confuse epistemology with ontology.

If there is no external world..why do you..

1. Eat food
2. Look both ways before crossing the street
3. Wash your hands to avoid getting sick

If there is no external world ,..do you believe...

If all humans were to suddenly vanish, would monkeys still exist?

Do you have parents? How did you come to be alive? How would it come that you would die? If you don't believe in time, was there ever a person named Abraham Lincoln who once lived?
If you don't believe in space, why aren't you in Hawaii right now? Or why can't you get to Hawaii instantly?

If other minds don't exist, who do you hope buys your book?

He's not. You are.
See?

I enjoyed the article my investigations so far points to either there is no mind as such only awareness, perception, experience whatever
Or another possibility is http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Let's hope whoever wrote the program didn't work for microsoft

Really simple? Not so much. You are confusing several separate concepts together to make it extra confusing though. It will take time and effort to figure this out if you are really interested. Look up Tom Campbell in youtube and watch some lectures...if you find it interesting then read his trilogy. This will explain the reality we are experiencing and the greater reality and answer the fractal nature of consciousness and how we are one yet individuated at the same time.
As far as experiencing reality as nondual yourself, if you shut down the selfing processes layer by layer that create the sense of self then a non dual experience of reality will happen. The book "The ego tunnel" outlines these layers quite well and is a fun read.
I wish I could explain it in a paragraph but I read about 1000 pages to learn it all.
Good Luck
~D

Everything I've read along these lines boils down to: we don't experience anything other than experience, therefore there is nothing other than experience... which means that experience is not experience of anything. The criterion of proof makes it impossible to prove the existence of anything other than experience, and then the absence of proof is turned into proof of absence. If anyone knows of a coherent treatment of this theme that does NOT rely on such a sleight of hand, I'd be interested to hear about it...
 
Meanwhile, of course experience is nondual... for everyone, all the time, whether they know it or not. Experience never experiences the absence of itself, or the boundaries of itself. They're only inferred, never experienced. But I haven't seen really convincing arguments that the inference (that something exists independently of awareness) is wrong.

(Edit: I can see the value of treating experience this way, and I often play around with such things myself for the psychological effects -- but turning it into metaphysics / ontology is a different matter).

But what if you are dissapointed, Goran? Do you offer a 14 day quibble free money back guarantee?

And John, did you not read the quote on the website?

Through the discovery of a simple but fundamental error of thought, in Refuting the External World Göran Backlund does nothing less than put forth a sober and irrefutable argument as to how and why an external physical world cannot exist.To effortlessly see for yourself how and why the existence of an external physical world is logically impossible, is like to having the master key to any existential question.” – Kristoffer Lindgren

The argument is irrefutable!  It is an irrefutable proof! Which means you can't refute it!
It definitely absolutely positively isn't the worst argument in the world...http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

Yes! If you buy the book and don't feel that I deliver exactly what I promised, I'll give you a refund.

Guys, if you are really out there, I swear to god that I exist.

If you do, please respond and maybe we can take our consciousness for a crossover à la Jetsons-meet-the-Flintstones.

I think I'll stick with Nagarjuna and the middle path.

So I read most of your essay, and I also read the section on your website where you discuss your awakening.  I'm just curious if you see there as being more to do, further awakening to acomplish, or if you consider yourself to be at the end of the road? 

Perhaps you are aware, Buddhist traditions have recorded many stages of enlightenment that people encounter as they progress on the path.  I am curious if you know of these and how you relate to them. 

Hi Goran

Nice deconstruction work there!

For me, the deconstruction was a huge step, but it did not stop there. For example, when I see suffering, I get awareness of light, and awareness of compassion. To exclude the latter (or any other co-arising "co-dependent" phenomenon) is still a form of delusion, a not-so-subtle way of fooling myself.

Speaking from my own experience here. YMMV, as always.

Cheers,
Florian

But you see the problem Goran?

You have toiled away, producing something that you think has value. It is worth something. Exactly 29 dollars! (not 30...)

But then you say:

"I made this site to help you find what I found. I want to help you wake up."

So you want to help people to wake up. If they give you their 29 dollars. 

It is...awkward. The Thervadans (who bias this site) tend to think pretty badly of charging for the "Dharma". Daniel gives his mammoth book away for free. But then he has a job so he doesn't need the money...The donation route is one way to avoid the problem. But you can see why you might get some negative reactions by posting here (and giving the impression of "pimping your book").

Also, you know that this statement below is pretty antithetical to the DhO? And that many around here think that investigating phenomena is about as interesting as it gets!?! 
http://www.uncoveringlife.com/awakening-story/

p.s. typo that needs fixing:

and holy shit was I exited. 

This reads quite a bit like the "Law of One" stuff - basically the general new age ethos taken from indian scriptures. While it's true that some people would call this enlightenment, I've never really understood the point of it. Why does it matter what reality is? I don't see how it would change my life whether I see it as matter or consiousness. I'd rather figure out how to live in it without stress. Maybe I'm too practical though.

Never been able to relate to that. For me, the greatest happiness (which isn't a feeling, but can involve feelings) comes from witnessing the unfolding of something utterly amazing (which this world actually is) that is completely beyond my desires or preferences, including any desire for peace or contentment.

I don't want peace as such, or spiritual attainments as such, except to the extent that they remove a veil of complacency and ignorance from what would otherwise be full of intrinsic meaning and wonder. I agree that full knowledge of the composition of reality doesn't matter so much, but the delight of marveling at its unfolding (even in its most ordinary manifestations) really does.  A peace and contentment that comes from that is really worth something... but a peace devoid of that, or indifferent to that, is something I just can't relate to.